From his 2005 book "Character is Destiny":
"Darwin helped explain nature’s laws. He did not speculate, in his published theories at least, on the origin of life. He did not exclude God, for Whom the immensity of time is but a moment, from our presence. The only undeniable challenge the theory of evolution poses to Christian beliefs is its obvious contradiction of the idea that God created the world as it is in less than a week. But our faith is certainly not so weak that it can be shaken to learn that a biblical metaphor is not literal history. Nature doesn’t threaten our faith. On the contrary, when we contemplate its beauty and mysteries we cannot quiet in our heart an insistent impulse of belief that for all its variations and inevitable change, before its creation, in a time before time, God let it be so, and, thus, its many splendors and purposes abide in His purpose.”
Thank you for sharing your perception on Creation.
How, if you say you believe in evolution, do you explain that the Bible says let us make man in our own image, and that God did make man, breathed life into him, took a rib from his side, made woman and place them in the Garden of Eden where He walked and talked with them?
It's sad when the GOP has turned to this social issues-leftwinger to lead the party against the left wingers.
First, you can't believe in evolution. As a scientific theory, evolution is subject to observation and testing. Belief cannot be tested...either you do or you don't. Second, by quoting the Bible as you have, you give it the status of an idol. What is the 3rd Commandment again? No false idols? God gives us the Ten Commandments (and Jesus gives us the Eleventh...Love your neighbor). Everything else in the Bible was written by some long dead Jewish priests and worship of those human words amounts to idolatry.
I think the most important thing to consider is whether or not a given member of Political Office thinks it is okay to introduce religion into Science classrooms. As said above, belief is holding to an ideal when their is no tangible evidence to support the position. Science accepts belief in a hypothesis, but when that hypothesis is proven, belief is cast aside for Truth.
Science makes a statement, based on belief (I believe objects of lesser density will be pulled to objects of greater density by an unseen force). Science then sets out to PROVE this to be True.
Religion makes a statement based on belief (A single divinity created all of existence, but it outside of existence itself). Religion is unable to pursue a path to prove the statement - as anything beyond existence cannot be perceived, thus cannot be proven.
Teach SCIENCE in science classes and leave religion to the temples, mosques, cathedrals, tabernacles, and churches.
John McCain’s particular flavor of religion is Christianity. As someone who acknowledges no other form of superstition apart from the one he was taught, he compares Evolution with the one supernatural theory he knows: Christian mythology. He concludes that there is no contradiction between said mythology and the scientific theory of Evolution, because Darwin allowed that life’s origin may have had supernatural cause. Furthermore, McCain see’s God’s hand in the Grand Canyon, but apparently only at sunset, not so much at sunrise. What do I think? Politics is a business for men of limited imagination and intellect. Maybe this needs to change.
The teaching that creation occurred in six 24 hour days is not a historic teaching of either Christianity or Judaism. It became a prominent teaching early in the 20th century within Adventist congregations. The biblical account need not be so narrowly interpreted as to make the creator subject to the created (time as well as space).
Science without some form of morals often results in the worst forms of human persecution. Wasn't Hitler a firm believer in Darwinism? His 'logic' assumed that it is OK to divorce science from any moral obligation, thereby allowing for the elimination of 'undesirables'. Stalin pursued a similar creed. In the name of progress, he enslaved millions of Eastern Europeans in Siberia.
Evolution is a THEORY not a fact. Any scientific theory SHOULD be open to proof and disproof. If it is valid, it will withstand objections. However, since some use the term 'evolution' to explain away Christianity, there are political protections in our taxpaid public institutions to prevent anyone from questioning the theory.
I agree with McFernis. However, one (if not the) major reason for any conflict between the theory of evolution and the Judeo Christian religion is the ignorance of the idea that anything not disprovable falls outside the scope of science. This ignorance seems to exist on both sides of the conflict.
The definition and scope of science needs to be taught. And, a perfect example to use in the classroom would be that the existence of a first cause (God) is not disprovable and therefore outside the knowledge of science. Why would we not teach that if we have any real desire to defuse any perceived conflict?
Replace the words "human-caused global warming" for "religion" in the above statement. Scientists are not immune from devising their own "religions" from time to time. Before castigating others for their belief in God, we scientists must be equally skeptical of those within our own ranks that seek wealth and power through the propagation of a hoax based on our work.
I really like the way McCain said it in the book excerpt. That's my position on science and God also -- science seeks explanation of facts and observations, and the Bible seeks explanation of our relationship with God and each other. Religion has no tools for the questions that science can answer; and science has no tools for the questions that religion answers.
The human capacities for reason, observation, experimentation, and creative scientific thought were given to us by God, as was the universe we have to examine. What we learn through them cannot be in conflict with God's Truth, even though it may conflict with our prior understanding.
Rigidly adhering to young-earth creationist theory is a form of boastfulness for a human (thus fallible) interpretation of the Bible, not for the Bible itself or for the God who inspired it. Elevating one Biblical interpretation above raw data from our own observations is not God's intent. What we can see and hear and touch (perhaps with the aid of scientific instruments) is part of what He wants to teach us.
How do schools treat Santa? We all protect him for children even within the schools. I suppose it's kept separate from nature studies but certainly we had both in primary school. Jesus and Santa can be preserved, their stories at least. Santa was never in our nature studies and neither was Jesus. Why the encroachment(Stories into nature/science). I believe the religious are upset because we are disturbing their comfort. Can we arrange secular institutions so like we protect children from challenging Santa we can somehow avoid challenging those of the population caught in these strange adult 'realities'.
When discussing evolution it must be clarified if we are talking about macroevolution (evolutionary change of one species to another) or microevolution (change within a species). The problem is we have equated the two terms in most discussions on evolution. In his book Evolution, Mark Ridley defines the terms thus:
“Macroevolution means evolution on the grand scale, and it is mainly studied in the fossil record. It is contrasted with microevolution, the study of evolution over short time periods, such as that of a human lifetime or less. Microevolution therefore refers to changes in gene frequency within a population .... Macroevolutionary events are much more likely to take millions of years. Macroevolution refers to things like the trends in horse evolution ... or the origin of major groups, or mass extinctions, or the Cambrian explosion .... Speciation is the traditional dividing line between micro- and macroevolution.”
Even creationists do not dispute microevolution but today it takes more faith to believe in macroevolution then it takes to believe that we were created by an intelligent being. Michael Denton’s book Evolution: A Theory In Crisis does a great job showing the lack of scientific evidence for macroevolution. What does John McCain mean when he says "I believe in evolution”? We cannot say. I would guess he is talking about microevolution.
Is this where science has evolved to. Oy vey....
My high school biology teacher in Mississippi in the 1950's introduced evolution with the comment: "If God wanted to create life forms using evolution who is there to tell Him He shouldn't or can't?" No one answered.
He taught the subject as Darwin intended -- based on random chance, and not as some kind of Manifest Destiny with humans and their genetically engineered progeny as the Success Case.
Just a few responses for your readers' consideration...
To Blake: If quoting the Bible makes it an idol, then you have to conclude that Jesus Christ was Himself an idolater, for He quoted repeatedly from the Law and the Prophets and said that He came not to abolish them but to fulfill them.
To Andrew Lee: To quote Pontious Pilate, "What is truth?" If truth is to be truth there can be only one truth. A Christian philosopher said it this way: "All truth is God's truth."
What you call "introducing Religion into the classroom," others may call critical evaluation of the philosophical, moral and cultural implications of a scientific theory. I believe that compartmentalization of intellectual pursuits results in knowledge without wisdom.
Furthermore, a believer in the God of the Bible will tell you he or she does not follow "religion" in the way you have defined it. Such a religion (that posits things without proof) is man working his way up to God. The Biblical teaching is that this is impossible; instead God has reached down to man. And the Bible asserts that He has provided many proofs (Check out 1 John 1:1-4 and Romans 1:18-22).
I contend that there are many paths to pursue to prove what the Bible teaches, including physical science (e.g. cosmology, archaeology...), theology (which, by the way literally means "God science" and in my experience is best begun with a study of the Bible text itself), and human experience (e.g., people down through the ages have testified to God keeping his promises).
It is possible to pose the question, "Is Biblical belief reasonable?" and then apply one's mind to find a rational answer.
Most people are ignorant, especially regarding the theory of evolution. And McCain needs votes...
IMHO, those who cannot endure the "Theory of Evolution" as a subject being taught in school are so weak in their religious beliefs that they cannot withstand any competition. Their minds are closed so don't confuse them with new theories or additional data.
We teach the Theory of Religion, the Atomic Theory, the Quantum Theory, the Electron Theory, the Theory of Relativity, and on and on. We cannot see or touch these theories, but we can see the results and all are pretty sound, even religion, but all are taken on faith of some nature. The Bible stating that "Let us make man in Our image" is a plural form, therefore there must be more than one God. Where is He, and who said He resides around here. All of our records were written by humans, including the various Bibles. Every author was inspired by something. Maybe Yahweh started the Garden of Eden on some other planet in the universe and humans from somewhere else managed to figure out how to travel through space, before they managed to blow themselves all to hell, and migrated to this planet, and probably others, bringing the Garden of Eden story with them.
I don't know, but I admit that I don't know. Neither do any of you. We all have our theories.
All theories, including the various religions of the world, should be taught in school, so that each child can make up his/her own mind without interference or brainwashing. Just present the various theories, don't embellish or promote any of them in the classroom.
Have a nice day!
WH
This is a relief, for those of us struggling to educate future generations about the importance of the sciences for the survival and ennobling of our species... and to those of us who are eager to keep our religions free of divisive tactics of breathtakingly inane charlatans. The attitude of Governor Palin, on the other hand, might be a matter of great concern....